Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[dioxide45]

Didn't you post this already???

I am reposting this to show you a little that is going on behind the scenes. This is an email from an owner who was dialed into the board call last Friday. Allan who has supported the owners for years and been open to us is now ignored by the board. Once again he was looking out for owners.

He wanted to give us the option to decide to delay the renovation, but no, the board would not even second his motion. Why not let the owners decide? When he went to support a board memebr who looked at charging rentors a feww, once she got his support, she no longer would support it, becuase Marriott said no. Once again who dictates what the board does, owners or Marriott.



As concerned owners at the Marriott Ocean Club, I wanted to provide you
with information on what transpired at the Board meeting this past
Friday. Based on that meeting, all owner concerns about this Board seem
well justified as they seem to have little interest in hearing from
Ocean Club owners regarding any of the issues and they are moving "full
steam " ahead despite the significant economic problems that many people
are facing and outstanding isues about possible Marriott liability for
some of the roof and other structural conditions at the Ocean Club.

I happened to attend the Board meeting merely by chance as it seemed to
be a well kept secret by the Board, On Thursday, December 18 I was at
the front desk at the Ocean Club in Aruba when I noticed a small tent
card partially hidden at the end of the desk noting the Board meeting
for Tuesday, December 17 at 3PM. Upon inquiry of OceanClub management, I
learned that it was actually sceduled for 4PM on Friday, December 19 and
was later told it was really at 3PM. One would think that notice of a
Board meeting would be prominently and accurately displayed to owners.

The meeting was attended in person by a number of Ocean Club Marriott
staff including Corey Guest, the General Manager of AOC, some of his
staff including the CFO, the General Manager of the Marriott Resort on
Aruba (Ocean Club, Surf Club and hotel) and by telephone a number of
MVCI representatives and the AOC Board. All of the Board members phoned
in to the meeting which was chaired by Frank Knox, the newly installed
President, who finally surfaced although apparently does not like to
respond to owner Emails.

Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
1.3 million.

Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
poll the owners on whether they support all of these
renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.

Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.

Happy to address any questions and I have no problem with these comments
being shared with any concerned owners. Regards, Ken

 

[timeos2]

Some answers to "answers"

Most of the Board meeting discussion focused on the planned
refurbishments and renovations with Board member, Steve Richards
discussing how he had been able to cut some of the proposed renovations,
saving around a million dollars, before he added some back in to the
mix. It was noted that a potential problem with having assessments paid
in two years rather than all at once was that there would not be
sufficient money to pay for it all and costs could increase.
Apparently, Marriott will be helping in bridging this concern but the
discussion was not totally clear on the specifics. Projected
expenditures for renovations for 2009 are 13 million and for 2010 1.2 to
1.3 million.

And why wouldn't the Board be discussing this? It ia a MAJOR renovation, apparently desperately needed, and it most likely was the reason for the meeting being held. This is the Board doing what they should - overseeing the operation of the resort. They are not meeting to talk to owners or argue. They are meeting to plan the best they can for what is needed.

Allan Cohen, former President of the AOC owner's Association, spoke of
the need for some renovations but noted that considering the sizable
increase in maintenance and reserve fees as well as the continuing
significant economic problems that most are feeling, the Board should
poll the owners on whether they support all of these
renovations/assessments at the present time. Allan made a motion to
this effect and since no one else spoke up, I asked to be heard. Knox,
referring to me as Mr. Berg, initially sought to disallow my comments,
but when I reminded him of my right as an owner which was confirmed by
Corey Guest's reading of the owner documents, he relented telling me I
had "2 minutes". Reminding Knox that I was Mr. Berkowitz and not Mr.
Berg(he seemed to have a "Mr. Berg" on his mind,) I reiterated Allan's
concerns and also noted that both Marriott and this Board had
credibility problems with owners as a result of their handling of the
roof and other structural issues and the lack of Board responses to
owner Emails and concerns. I further noted that the significant
increases in maintenance and reserve fees together with the planned
assessments could adversely effect many owners considering the
troublesome economic conditions worldwide and, therefore, it was very
important that on this issue the Board be transparent and submit this
matter to the owners for a vote. Led by Frank Knox, the Board voted
against this motion, with no one even offering a second. No one spoke up
or expressed any concern for the owners other than Allan and myself.

Again they gave the owner a chance to speak, they didn't have to under most rules of Board meetings, and then addressed the questions. Just because they chose not to act (not the answer some wanted) doesn't mean that anything wrong was done. They have a right as the elected Board to act or not on any proposal. That's what Boards do. There is no requirement to poll the owners - thats' why they were elected. Read the documents you agreed to.

Another issue raised by Board member, Melissa Pericolosi, was to have
non owners e.g. renters or those who "trade in" pay a utility surcharge.
Utility costs were projected to rise significantly under the recently
approved budget for Aruba. Marriott spoke against this motion arguing
that it would violate its agreement with Interval International. Allan
Cohen asked that Board legal counsel review whether there were any
issues to prevent such a surcharge and again led by Knox, there was no
support for such a referral to legal counsel. Even Pericolosi, who first
raised it had no interest in pursuing a further legal evaluation.

That is true. Every resort (except DVC who flaunted the rules with II and got them to agree to an exception, believe me you don't want to go down THAT road as you will be hit with very negative scores for doing that) agrees to treat owners/exchange guests the same. If they charge guests they need to charge owners as well. Do you want that? Again Marriott was presenting the facts of the situation not conspiring to somehow raise fees for owners. The Board listened and reached a logical conclusion. If you don't agree run for the Board, make a better case and get the majority to vote with you.

Prior to adjourning the meeting, Board member Richards said that in the
interest of fair balance (I guess to my earlier comments of concern), he
needed to note that he had heard from owners about the need for
renovations. After the meeting Corey Guest mentioned to me that he
passes on to Richard any owner comments on conditions of the villas on a
regular basis and that was what he was referring to in his comments.

So the messages are getting through to the Board. If, in their opinion, the best course of action is to move ahead with the renovation that is what they were elected to do. Act in the best interest of the Association - the resort. Not cave in to a group of owners, or management, that think they know best. It's not easy being a Board member or making tough choices. But it sure sounds to me like this Board is acting in the best, ongoing interest of the resort and in having a reasonable relationship, not a cozy one, with the hired management.

It sounds like Marriott is stepping up with millions of dollars in outright payments and possible bridge loans. They don't HAVE to do that as a management and maybe the Board is recognizing that as a valuable contribution. The Board states they had outside engineers look at the property and find the offers acceptable. Do the owners complaining have OUTSIDE investigations that prove the building/roof was flawed from day one and that Marriott knew it and somehow hid it? If you don't want the higher overhead of a brand name like Marriott then fire them and bring in another management. But most owners of a Marriott property seem to prefer the cache of the name even if it means higher fees. If the Board is acting to maintain that relationship how are they acting against the majority of owners?

Again it seems that the complaint is more "it's not my way" or "it's not enough" rather than "lets make this work at a price we can live with". I'd find it hard to say this Board isn't acting properly. They may be listening to Marriott as well as the owners but that's why you pay big bucks to a management firm. If you can't trust them then boot them. But do it through the proper channels and in a respectful way if you hope to be taken seriously. And be ready to hear answers you may not think are correct but are reasonable and can be backed up. That's what a court is going to look at should that path be taken.

 

[marksue]

Read it again they are not listening to owners or wanting to listen to owners. Allan asked to ahve the owners vote ont hsi refurbishment since there is a great deal of anger around the expense, but the board didn't want to even entertain it.

 

[dioxide45]

One other point, Melissa is President of her Marriott timeshare development in Florida. I believe there is a conflict of interest being on this board as well.

She is president at Grande Vista. I don't see any conflict of interest here. Many times people who are on the BOD are on boards other places and even serve as chairman/president. This holds true in the private sector. Many CEOs of large corporations serve on boards for other companies. There is no conflict of interest. President of two boards may be an issue, but not just serving on two boards. It really isn't a full time job.

 

[marksue]

Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board. Being president on 1 board and having Marriott take care of that development but you have to do this in Aruba is a conflict. Not saying that is happening but the conflict opportunity is there.

 

[timeos2]

Read it again they are not listening to owners or wanting to listen to owners. Allan asked to ahve the owners vote ont hsi refurbishment since there is a great deal of anger around the expense, but the board didn't want to even entertain it.

And that is their right. They heard the request and didn't decide to act on it. There is no requirement to have an owner vote. That isn't the way a condo/timeshare operates. Read the documents - they have that right. It is not by any stretch an offense that could lead to a recall. You don't have to like it but you may have to live with it.

 

[Sunbum]

Marksue

There is no resale value today for the Ocean Club. Why would you buy a unit at the Ocean club when you can pay almost the same price and save 500 in MF from the surf club?

If you are to gain/keep credability you need to get the facts right. This is absolutely NOT TRUE! I have had a few pm 's with LOVEARUBA about this. You can go to the top 3 resale websites and you will not find more than four, 2bdrm plat weeks for sale, at any price! No one is dumping and basically no one is even selling!

There is always lots of gold for sale.

 

[marksue]

I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response. I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense. I stand by my statement. Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit. To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.

 

[dioxide45]

Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board. Being president on 1 board and having Marriott take care of that development but you have to do this in Aruba is a conflict. Not saying that is happening but the conflict opportunity is there.

Show me where this is written that one can not serve on more than one HOA board.

A conflict of interest would be if Melissa served on the board and was also the owner of the roofing company doing the roof renovations. Serving on two independent boards is not a conflict. I don't see where her decisions on one board could affect anything with regards to the operations of the other resort. I don't even see an opportunity for conflict.

Board members meet usually only a few times a year and make very high level decisions regarding the resort operations. It is not a full time job. These people usually have other full time jobs. They don't get paid other than for travel expenses to serve on the BOD.

 

[marksue]

I know a board member on a Marriott TS board and when he was looking to buy in another resort he was told you can not serve on more than 1 board that marriott prevents that from happening.

 

[dioxide45]

It doesn't appear to be written and is actually hearsay. Marriott is only a management company. The boards are independent owner associations. These people don't work for Marriott when serving on the board, (some may be Marriott employees) they are working for the owners. I don't see where Marriott could dictate who serves on independent HOA boards.

 

[Sunbum]

Marksue

I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response. I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense. I stand by my statement. Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit. To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.

I guess what you are saying is that people are not lining up to buy one bedroom, gold weeks. There has always been a ton of gold weeks for sale. This is not something new.

Most of your response is trying to convince me to buy at the SC. Most people i know will NOT buy at the Surf Club. They will pay a few grand extra to be at the Ocean Club. I have friends looking to buy at the Ocean Club as i type this.

Again, there is no dumping, no firesales, not even a good deal to be had! If anyone wants to dump their's let me know.(2bdrm, plat)

 

[dioxide45]

I guess what you are saying is that people are not lining up to buy one bedroom, gold weeks. There has always been a ton of gold weeks for sale. This is not something new.

Most of your response is trying to convince me to buy at the SC. Most people i know will NOT buy at the Surf Club. They will pay a few grand extra to be at the Ocean Club. I have friends looking to buy at the Ocean Club as i type this.

Again, there is no dumping, no firesales, not even a good deal to be had! If anyone wants to dump their's let me know.(2bdrm, plat)

I think the point trying to be made is that there isn't dumping being done because you can't even dump the weeks. I don't know why anyone would want to buy at the OC. Just wait a few more years and you will save a lot of money since the SA will be over.

 

[Sunbum]

Marksue

Check out Redweek.com. The OC has about 220 rooms and there is 18 for sale. The SC has 600 + rooms and 50 are for sale. The ratio looks pretty close me. Still no fire sale.

E-bay has 3 listed. Two at the SC and One Gold week at the OC.

 

[Sunbum]

I think the point trying to be made is that there isn't dumping being done because you can't even dump the weeks. I don't know why anyone would want to buy at the OC. Just wait a few more years and you will save a lot of money since the SA will be over.

What are you trying to say? Your comment makes no sense.

 

[dioxide45]

What are you trying to say? Your comment makes no sense.

Basically people know that they won't be able to sell their weeks, so they are not even going to bother trying to list it.

 

[ecwinch]

I have a 1 bedroom for sale saying make an offer and there has not been a single response. I have talked to others that have given up trying to sell, as they have not had any offers that make sense. I stand by my statement. Why would you buy inthe OC and pay more for a 2 bedroom and get hit with assesments for 2 years unless you can steal a unit. To me that is not a market. You get a better deal buying a surf club unit if you can't steal an ocean club unit.

Because in two years, OC will be a newly refurbished resort on par with SC. And the resort will be more appealing as it does not suffer from the over-built condition that the SC has. The down-side of that equation is that the MF will likely always be higher then the SC, as their are fewer units in the OC to spread certain fixed operating costs (i.e. mgt, insurance, etc) over. That is the fallacy of comparing the OC to the SC - it is an apples to oranges comparision.

Having just spent a week at SC, I would much rather stay at OC, once the planned refurbishments have been completed.

 

[Sunbum]

dioxide45

Basically people know that they won't be able to sell their weeks, so they are not even going to bother trying to list it.

That is the craziest thing i have ever heard!

 

[dioxide45]

That is the craziest thing i have ever heard!

Why is this crazy? Back when gas was at $4.50 a gallon there were a lot of people parking their SUV's; they weren't dumping them, they weren't selling them. They knew they were worthless and they couldn't sell them if they tried. Some dealerships were taking them as trade-ins but giving very little for them. So they just parked them and when the prices dropped they started driving them again. Doesn't sound so crazy at all.

 

[ecwinch]

This thread has the most posts that I have seen on the BBS.

As I recall some Marriott timeshares in Colorado could not agree with Marriott management on issues.

Those resorts elected to become non Marriott brand timeshares.

The board of directors represent the owners and should be looking out for the best interests of all owners.

The saga will continue for years to come.

And in Steamside situation, how about those owners that bought into the "Marriott" brand of timeshares, and now are on the outside looking in. It was not a 100% vote to opt out of MCVI system, in that situation some owners lost.

 

[Sunbum]

Why is this crazy? Back when gas was at $4.50 a gallon there were a lot of people parking their SUV's; they weren't dumping them, they weren't selling them. They knew they were worthless and they couldn't sell them if they tried. Some dealerships were taking them as trade-ins but giving very little for them. So they just parked them and when the prices dropped they started driving them again. Doesn't sound so crazy at all.

There is a problem with your analogy, you obviously did not check the Auto Trader when the value of SUV's was dropping. It was full of people trying to sell them. As were the dealership's lots.

Try again.

 

[Dave M]

Marriott tells you, you can not serve on more than 1 board.

As has happened with a number of your claims here, once again this is absolutely not true. As just one example, the same individual - an owner, not a Marriott employee - is president of three Marriott HOA Boards - Summit Watch, Royal Palms and Cypress Harbour.

 

[Glenn Saunders]

Live Life to the Fullest Dude

Have family on island now so not much time to keep up to date with your website but I had dinner a couple days ago with one of the primary former MVCI sales managers for the Ocean and Surf Club who is a long time diving friend of mine; he left and now heads up the new TDS Anabui fractional ownership project which costs over $100k just for entry into the program. He brought up some good points when we were reviewing this website together and presented his own past experiences with management and the board. It seems to me that after listening to him and reading these posts that there are some serious issues that need to be resolved. I may see a bit flippant about your issues since I am not an owner of your timeshare and merely only enjoy reading the comments, however, it does appear that your board is doing more than I did while I was on our condo association board back home (that wasn't much though). Someone mentioned that they do this type of job on a volunteer basis -simply for that reason is why I resigned and am glad for that since you get no kudos. Sunbum says 'Life is Short' - to those that may think about running on a board - don't do it as the headaches aren't worth it - from personal experiece I know how true that is. For curiosity sake, it was never answered by 'marksue', but where did his email addresses actually come from (see earlier posts) and why is he so sure that all the responses he's been asking from your Board are all always the wrong responses )again, see earlier posts). It seems that he or she (androgynous name) may be now avoiding the tough questions, however, I may have been hard on 'marksue' in my earlier posts because of the apparent stubborness and unwillingness to be flexible and listen to others - and this is from a non-owner point of view like many others - but his persistence should be commended. Just make sure that persistence, by anyone, is not viewed upon as arrogance and ignorance. Life is short and what comes around goes around so enjoy it to the fullest. By the way, for those of you from up north (even as far as my home town of Dallas) the weather here today was great - breezy and in the high 80's. We're leaving soon to go even furhter south of the border for a few weeks; I'll keep up to date though as this is simply just good entertainment (especially after a few vodkas). Good luck -

 

[thinze3]

There is a problem with your analogy, you obviously did not check the Auto Trader when the value of SUV's was dropping. It was full of people trying to sell them. As were the dealership's lots.

Try again.

We own a Yukon XL and contemplated getting rid of it last summer. I didn't sell because my gut told me that I could drive it for another year and actually get more money for it in the future. In other words, it paid not to sell.

Now that gas is about 60% cheaper I am very glad I did not sell it. I assume that there were many people who did sell there large SUV's, but also many who didn't bother because they new the market was not there.

I think that is the point trying to be made.


Terry

 

[thinze3]

... he left and now heads up the new TDS Anabui fractional ownership project which costs over $100k just for entry into the program ...

YIKES! Terrible timing for him. You better get out of town before he asks to move in with you. :hysterical:

... By the way, for those of you from up north (even as far as my home town of Dallas) ...

Dallas! That makes you a Yankee too!
Enjoy you vacation "further south".

Terry